Conan A. Boyd (Re), 2026 CanLII 2088

Ontario Review Board

Re: Conan A. Boyd

ORB File No: 8144

Hearing held on: Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. L.O. Lightfoot

Dr. R. Chandrasena

Ms. C. Murray

Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Conan A. Boyd

Counsel: Mr. C.P. Dobson

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 12, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On June 15, 2022, Mr. Conan A. Boyd was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and fail to stop police, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Boyd is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 24, 2024, which ordered that he be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest”).

3. On December 9, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Southwest to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Boyd was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. C. Dobson.

5. A Hospital Report, dated October 9, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Boyd is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Boyd continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Detention Order, with two additional privileges: 1) hospital and ground privileges, accompanied by staff or a person or delegate approved by the person in charge; and 2) to enter the community of Southern and Southwestern Ontario, indirectly supervised.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

8. Query Primary Versus Secondary Bipolar Disorder

Substance Use Disorder (cannabis and methamphetamine), in remission in a controlled environment

Dysfunctional Personality Traits (mainly Cluster B)

Index Offences:

9. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:

“Monday, August 17, 2020, at roughly 10:15 PM, witness Jacqueline Reeves observed three males arguing to the south of her workplace which is the Molly Bloom’s and that’s at 700 Richmond St. in London. Ms. Reeves observed the three males relocate to the front of Molly Bloom’s and continue to argue and now began threatening customers inside their patio. Mr. Conan Boyd was one of these three males. At 10:21 PM she contacted police to report the incident. Prior to police arrival, Ms. Reeves observed one of the males, Mr. Boyd leave the two others and then attend to the parking lot south of Molly Bloom’s. She then heard a car alarm and observe Mr. Boyd drive out in a black SUV and park in front of Molly Bloom’s. Eventually, he parked across the street at 709 Richmond St., where his vehicle was facing to the west. 10:24 PM officers Henry and Sunstrum arrived. Ms. Reeves pointed to Mr. Boyd across the street as being involved in the disturbance. Both officers attended and spoke with Mr. Boyd at his driver’s window. The two officers both ordered him to stop the vehicle, turn it off as they were at the driver’s side door. Mr. Boyd neglected the orders from police and quickly reversed onto Richmond Street at a high rate of speed, having come close to striking the police officers. At that point in time, Richmond Street was also quite busy with a number of civilians enjoying the nightlife.

Mr. Boyd was operating his own motor vehicle, which was a 2003 black SUV with an Ontario plate. He fled the area at a higher rate of speed northbound on Richmond Street. He was initially driving in the southbound lanes. He weaved around other vehicles as the other vehicles stopped for their safety until he returned east onto Oxford Street. He then turned onto a private property at 243 Oxford St. E. He swerved around vehicles before continuing eastbound toward Wellington Street. As he pulled onto Wellington Street he faced north, another officer had positioned his marked police cruiser at the intersection of Wellington Street and Oxford Street and then turned on his emergency lights and siren in an attempt to stop Mr. Boyd’s motor vehicle. He failed to stop and continued to flee, driving into the Subway parking lot at 265 Oxford St. E. He then exited that parking lot back onto Oxford Street. There were numerous civilian motor vehicles on Oxford Street when he exited onto the roadway. He made no attempt to stop or slow down. When he entered onto the road, he narrowly missed vehicles driving eastbound. They were required to immediately stop. Mr. Boyd then began travelling at a high rate of speed eastbound on Oxford Street, moving around vehicles. He eventually slowed down and began to travel at a normal pace of speed before pulling into a private parking lot at 590 Oxford St. East. Police entered both exits and entrances to the lot to contain him. As police entered into the parking lot Mr. Boyd made several maneuvers in order to evade police, however, his vehicle was eventually boxed into the parking lot safely with no damage.

Mr. Boyd failed to listen to police demand to turn his vehicle off and exit his vehicle. Police were required to physically turn and remove the key as he continued to refuse to exit. Police physically removed Mr. Boyd from the vehicle where he was handcuffed to the rear and he was subsequently arrested at 10:29 PM for dangerous driving and fail to stop for police. He was placed into the back of a marked cruiser. 10:36 PM he was read his rights to counsel and caution and he was identified verbally and by way of police mugshot. Subsequently transported to the London Police cells where he was booked in by the Sergeant at 10:56 PM. He requested council at that time. There were no injuries arising from this incident, and there was no damage arising from this incident.”

Criminal Record and Background and Personal History:

10. Mr. Boyd’s criminal record, background and personal history are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Mr. Boyd had the following criminal record prior to the commission of the index offences:

1996-07-30

LONDON ONT

USE OR HANDLE

AMMUNITION, SEC 86(2) CC

IN SUSP SENT PLUS PROBATION FOR CARELESS MANNER 1 YR

1996-09-17

LONDON ONT

BE & COMMIT, SEC 348(1)(B) CC

30 DAYS & PROBATION FOR 12

MOS

1996-10-28

LONDON ONT

FRAUD UNDER $5000, SEC 380(1)(B) CC

SUSP SENT PROBATION FOR 2 YRS & COMPENSATION $1042.18

2009-07-28

LONDON ONT

(1) RESIST ARREST, SEC 129(A) CC

(2) MISCHIEF UNDER $5000,

SEC 430(4) CC

(1) SUSPENDED SENTENCE ADULT

COURT & PROBATION 15 MO(S) &

(2 DAY(S) PRE-SENTENCE

CUSTODY) & DISCRETIONARY

PROHIBITION ORDER 10 YR(S)

(2) SUSPENDED SENTENCE &

PROBATION 15 MO(S) & (2 DAY(S)

PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY)

2009-07-29

LONDON ONT

(1) FAIL TO COMPLY, SEC 145(3) CC

(2) FAIL TO COMPLY, SEC

145(3) CC

(1) 1 DAY(S) ADULT COURT

RECOGNIZANCE & (2 DAY(S) PRESENTENCE

(2) 1 DAY(S) CONCURRENT

PROBATION ORDER & (2 DAY(S)

PRE-SENTENCE)

2010-05-27

LONDON ONT

FAIL TO COMPLY, SEC 145(3) CC

1DAY(S) ADULT COURT

RECOGNIZANCE WITH & (7

DAY(S) PRE-SENTENCE

2010-07-12

LONDON ONT

(1) MISCHIEF UNDER $5000

SEC 430(4) CC

(2) POSS OF A WEAPON, SEC 88(1) CC

(1) SUSPENDED SENTENCE ADULT

COURT & PROBATION 1 YR(S) & (10 DAY(S) PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY)

(2) SUSPENDED SENTENCE & PROBATION 1 YR(S) CONCURRENT & (10) DAY(S) PRESENTENCE & DISCRETIONARY PROHIBITION ORDER

2011-11-08

LONDON ONT

FAIL TO APPEAR 1 DAY, SEC 145(5) CC

2DAYS PRE-SENTENCE

CUSTODY)

2012-08-22

LONDON ONT

1. FAIL TO COMPLY, SEC

145(3) CC

(2) MISCHIEF UNDER $5000,

SEC 430(4) CC

(1) 1 DAY(S) ADULT COURT

RECOGNIZANCE & PROBATION 18

MO(S) & 27 DAY(S) PRE-SENTENCE

CUSTODY)

(2) 1 DAY(S) CONCURRENT&

PROBATION 18 MO(S) & (27

DAY(S) PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY)

2012-08-22

LONDON ON

BREAK ENTER & COMMIT,

SEC 348(1)(B) CC

1 DAY & PROBATION 18 MOS (27

DAYS PRESENTENCE CUSTODY)

2017-06-20

ST. THOMAS,

ON

POSS OF FIREARM, SEC

117.01(1)

60 DAYS (CREDIT FOR THE ST

THOMAS ON AMMUNITION

CONTRARY TO EQUIVALENT OF

33 DAYS PROHIBITION ORDER

PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY) &

MANDATORY WEAPONS

PROHIBITION

2017-10-26

LONDON ON

UTTERING THREATS, SEC

264.1(1)(B)

SUSPENDED SENTENCE &

PROBATION 12 MOS &

DISCRETIONARY WEAPONS

PROHIBITION FOR 10 YRS

“Mr. Boyd was born in London, Ontario. He grew up with his biological parents until the age of five when his parents separated. He reported that his father was emotionally and physically abusive towards him and his mother. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Boyd suffered extreme abuse by his father and by his mother during his youth. Mr. Boyd denied that he had ever been abused by his mother and is unsure where this information originated. At the age of 13, Mr. Boyd went to live with his aunt after having been in the sole custody of his father for three years. It is reported that he was extremely traumatized as a youth due to an extreme family discord and abuse.

Mr. Boyd did not do well in school. He had difficulty following through with academic tasks and he had a diagnosis of dyslexia. Mr. Boyd dropped out of school in grade 11, but obtained his high school diploma later, in his 30s.

After dropping out of high school, Mr. Boyd learned the trade of tile installation and worked as a tile installer for approximately 18 years. He developed severe substance abuse issues and spent various periods of time in rehabilitation centres in Toronto coincident with this long period of employment.

Mr. Boyd has a son who is 12 years of age. The relationship with his son's mother did not work out and the separation from her and his son was stressful for Mr. Boyd, and he began abusing alcohol and cannabis. The history of the child's custody is complex and involved relatives of Mr. Boyd as well as time for the child in foster care.

Mr. Boyd was first diagnosed with impulse control disorder, substance use disorder and antisocial personality disorder in 2010 when a psychiatric assessment was done through probation services. In 2014 he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder type 1. A common concurrent presentation for Mr. Boyd was substance induced psychosis. In early 2022, Mr. Boyd was admitted to London Health Sciences Centre as he was irritable, intimidating, disinhibited and psychotic. He suffered from persecutory and grandiose delusions. His admission lasted a few weeks up until his discharge on March 1, 2022.

On March 9, 2022, Mr. Boyd was brought to the Strathroy Hospital emergency department by police after he allegedly called a CAS building threatening to “burn it down”. Mr. Boyd was reportedly using psilocybin (magic mushrooms) and crystal methamphetamine at this time. CAS advised Mr. Boyd that he could not see his son (without CAS supervision) until the court matter is dealt with. Mr. Boyd acknowledged that the current CAS situation has significantly affected his mental health.

Mr. Boyd has a significant criminal offending history. In 1996 Mr. Boyd had a series of convictions for various criminal offences including breaches of court orders, break and enter, fraud, and using or handling ammunition in a careless manner. There was a gap in his record and then in 2010, he was again convicted of weapons offences, mischief, and breaches of court order and again in 2012 he had similar type offences. His next set of charges were in 2017 and included possession of a firearm which Mr. Boyd claimed was a paintball gun.

Of significance, Mr. Boyd has been convicted of a series of criminal offences in the past year, which all relate to issues of family discord around custody of his son. The conviction and sentence details are as set out in the Hospital Report at pages 12 to 14. These convictions include criminal harassment, fail to comply, uttering threats, and fail to comply with bail conditions. Mr. Boyd is currently subject to three different probation orders that stemmed from these most recent series of convictions. The actual circumstances of these offences are not detailed in the Hospital Report.

Mr. Boyd has a volatile family dynamic and at present he cannot have contact with his son unless supervised by the Children's Aid Society (“CAS”). There was a time when Mr. Boyd had custody of his son, but he was unable to fulfill a protective parental role due to his addiction and untreated mental health issues. In general, he has considerable difficulty accepting and complying with the parameters of the CAS protection order and court-imposed sanctions. This is reflected in the summary from his probation officer which is included in the Hospital Report.

Mr. Boyd reported that he started to abuse substances around the age of 16. He used alcohol, cannabis, LCD and MDMA (ecstasy). Approximately eight years later, he started using hashish and ketamine which is known to cause hallucinations. He has used cocaine in the past and he has tried crystal methamphetamine for a short period during the time of his assessment for criminal responsibility by Dr. Levin. As mentioned, Mr. Boyd has attended several rehabilitation programs. Mr. Boyd estimates the total time he has spent in substance abuse programs at five years. It is unclear if this is an accurate total. He continues to use cannabis according to the Hospital Report.’”

Position of the Parties:

11. Counsels for the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. Boyd advised that this was a joint submission: all were adopting the hospital’s recommendation of a continuation of the existing Detention Order, with two additional privileges: 1) hospital and ground privileges, accompanied by staff; and 2) to enter the community of Southern and Southwestern Ontario indirectly supervised.

Course Since Last Disposition:

12. Mr. Boyd’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“Mr. Boyd remained on the Rehabilitation Unit B1 under the psychiatric care of Dr. Amir Rezaei Ardani for the duration of the reporting period.

As was mentioned in the hospital report for the previous hearing, Mr. Boyd consistently presented with negative symptoms, including apathy, lack of motivation, and lack of engagement in rehabilitative programs over the course of his hospitalization following his transfer to the Rehabilitation Unit B1 in 2023. This presentation continued following his last hearing from December 2024 until May 2025.

Following the discontinuation of his psychiatric medications in May 2025, Mr. Boyd has shown gradual improvement in his energy, motivation, and social engagement. He has been more active, ambulating frequently, attending two to three programs daily (e.g., mutual help, mindset Monday, meditation, meal prep, rock talk, billiards, spirituality, wake up and stretch), and walking outdoors with peers.

Mr. Boyd has not displayed any significant cognitive deficits after discontinuation of medications.

In July 2025, Mr. Boyd was referred to the in-hospital Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) group, specifically for the Distress Tolerance module with two components: Crisis Survival Skills and Reality Acceptance Skills. After meeting with group facilitators for an intake, he agreed to partake, but after two sessions, he withdrew from the group, citing he disliked speaking in group settings and did not like the homework.

On September 8, 2025, Mr. Boyd expressed his intention to increase his use of community passes and requested level seven privileges (full community access) to support his participation in activities and tending to his personal needs. However, this was not granted in order to encourage him to participate in structured programming. Rather, he has daily passes for up to five hours each and the ability to attend AA as much as he would like.”

Evidence at the Hearing:

13. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Ardani. Dr. Ardani co-authored the Hospital Report, and he is Mr. Boyd’s treating psychiatrist. He testified as follows:

a) He adopts the contents of the Hospital Report.

b) The treatment team changed its diagnosis to query secondary bipolar disorder. Mr. Boyd was admitted to the forensic system after being found NCR because of bipolar disorder. Over time, negative symptoms emerged, prompting a review of possible diagnoses, including hypothyroidism and depression.

c) Despite medication changes and consultation with specialists, Mr. Boyd’s symptoms have persisted. A medication wash-out trial was conducted, which involved the ceasing of all antipsychotic medications and mood stabilizers. Mr. Boyd showed improvement once he was off all of his medications, which suggests that his primary diagnosis may be substance-induced, rather than a primary mental illness of bipolar disorder.

d) As Mr. Boyd’s medication regimen was changed just recently, the treatment team needs further time to confirm this hypothesis.

e) The main triggers for relapse for Mr. Boyd are substance use and stress.

f) Mr. Boyd has insight into his risk, but he has yet to be assessed using indirectly supervised passes in a community setting.

g) Mr. Boyd’s psychological evaluation found traits from various personality disorder categories, but none were enough for a specific diagnosis.

h) Key challenges facing Mr. Boyd include his self-concept, social lifestyle and maintaining relationships. Limitations in all these factors increase his relapse risk.

i) Mr. Boyd started DBT and trauma therapy but did not complete either, as he prefers one to one treatment. He is on the waitlist for further one to one therapy.

j) Mr. Boyd uses avoidance as a coping strategy.

k) Mr. Boyd has remained abstinent while in the supervised setting of the hospital, but he has not yet been fully assessed while accessing the community.

l) He agreed with the HCR-20 assessment, which indicates that Mr. Boyd is: a low risk in hospital; a moderate risk if detained in the community under a Detention Order; and a moderate-to-high risk if under a Conditional Discharge.

m) The treatment team is recommending a gradual reintegration into the community for Mr. Boyd. This integration will start with indirectly supervised passes and will include visits to his father in Southern Ontario.

n) There will be challenges finding appropriate accommodation in the community for Mr. Boyd, as most group homes take a harm reduction approach towards substances, rather than an abstinence-based approach. Supportive housing is not available to Mr. Boyd because of his cognitive profile.

o) Mr. Boyd is currently waiting for a new psychotherapist. He recently requested a change, as he felt he was unable to build a therapeutic alliance with his current provider. This request is an example of his dysfunctional coping mechanism, using avoidance. Mr. Boyd does have insight into his need for ongoing psychotherapy.

p) To Mr. Boyd’s credit, he was able to quit smoking cold turkey.

q) Use of substances would cause a decompensation in Mr. Boyd’s mental state, causing him to become a significant threat to the safety of the public.

r) Mr. Boyd has requested to attend another residential addiction program.

s) The re-offence scenario set out on pages 55 and 56 of the Hospital Report is still true today.

t) It is necessary for the hospital to approve Mr. Boyd’s accommodations in the community. When Mr. Boyd had previously lived in the community on a Detention Order, he had to be returned to hospital, as he was unable to abstain from substances.

u) Mr. Boyd still needs to be more forthcoming with the treatment team about his thoughts and concerns. This issue is an ongoing challenge.

v) The Mental Health Act is reactive versus proactive. Therefore, it could not be used in a timely manner to protect the safety of the public, should Mr. Boyd use substances.

14. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Boyd, Dr. Ardani testified:

a) Going forward, the treatment team needs to assess Mr. Boyd’s ability to exercise indirectly supervised passes into the community. He also needs to demonstrate further engagement in substance use programming.

b) The treatment team would like to see him engage in peer-to-peer programs, attend a rehabilitation program run by Westover, and participate in their aftercare program.

15. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Ardani testified:

a) There are no appropriate group homes that utilize an abtsinence approach. Finding appropriate housing in the community will be a challenge going forward.

b) The treatment team still needs to work with Mr. Boyd on both his trauma issues and his impulsivity. Mr. Boyd also needs to work with a psychotherapist, to address issues with his self-concept and self-esteem.

c) Mr. Boyd’s depressive symptoms were more a reaction to his situation, rather than a result of clinical depression.

d) It will take more time to fully ascertain whether Mr. Boyd suffers from bipolar disorder or a substance use induced psychosis, because of the half-life of his medication regimen

e) Mr. Boyd has been to the Westover program in the past. However, over the last six weeks, Mr. Boyd could be described as having been motivated more internally than externally to engage in a substance abuse relapse plan.

f) Regarding the appropriateness of including a prohibition of driving a motor vehicle in his current Disposition, Dr. Ardani advised that he felt that it was not necessary immediately. However, should he see Mr. Boyd use substances, he would contact the Ministry of Transportation to revoke his licence.

g) Mr. Boyd probably does not have the financial ability to obtain a motor vehicle.

16. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

17. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Boyd remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

18. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Ardani, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

19. Mr. Boyd has a history of medication nonadherence, substance use, inconsistent attendance of appointments with his outreach team, and nonadherence to his Disposition.

20. Mr. Boyd does not have stable housing in the community.

21. Mr. Boyd does not have any professional community mental health supports beyond the forensic system and would not seek out these supports on his own.

22. In particular, the Board relies on the Re-Offence Scenario, the Risk Management and Recovery Plan and the Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk set out in the Hospital Report:

“Re-Offence Scenario

Absent psychiatric supervision and support, Mr. Boyd would likely return to substance use and not maintain regular contact with his available personal and professional supports, similar to his tenure after his initial hearing in December 2022. Relapse into substance use, in particular, cannabis, to cope with the stress of daily life, would likely cause decompensation of his mental state, including an elevated mood, paranoia, and irritability. He would likely behave in a reckless and erratic manner, become aggressive, and be at a greater risk of violent reoffending, as it was evident at the time of the index offence.

Risk Management and Recovery Plan

Over the course of the next reporting period, the treatment team will work on confirming Mr. Boyd’s diagnosis and based on the diagnosis, optimize medications if needed. They will work on connecting him with various community resources for addiction support, including a residential treatment program such as Westover. He will also be re-referred to Psychology services for trauma counseling. The team will continue to explore options for community placement and determine which setting is most suitable for his needs. Mr. Boyd will also be supported in obtaining splints for his hands.

Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk

It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Boyd continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:

1. Mr. Boyd’s psychiatric medications were discontinued this reporting period to help clarify his diagnosis and for resolution of side effects. He has not presented with any overt psychosis or significant mood fluctuations so far, but staff continue to monitor him closely for the re-emergence of symptoms;

2. Mr. Boyd’s low motivation and energy limited his participation in his recovery program until approximately July 2025. He is in the early stages of participating in psychotherapeutic programming to address his risk factors;

3. Mr. Boyd’s insight into his mental illness, need for treatment, and violence risk remains underdeveloped and fluctuating overall;

4. Mr. Boyd has remained abstinent from substance use while residing in the highly supervised hospital setting. However, he remains relatively untested with less supervision in the community and has not participated in any formal substance use programming;

5. Mr. Boyd’s coping strategies remain inadequate to deal with life stressors. Historically, he has been noted to utilize maladaptive strategies such as avoidance, withdrawal and substance use to cope with stress and boredom;

6. Mr. Boyd has a limited social network. His only source of support remains his father who was not able to mitigate his risk, historically;

7. Mr. Boyd has no professional community mental health supports beyond the forensic system and does not have stable housing in the community; and

8. Mr. Boyd’s ability to maintain his current level of stability, absent the current level of support and supervision, has yet to be tested. This requires his active participation in community re-integration plans.

Mr. Boyd continues to require a detention disposition to provide him with the supervision, monitoring and support that is necessary. His psychiatric medications were discontinued during this reporting period, and he continues to require close monitoring for the re-emergence of symptoms. His insight into his mental illness, need for treatment and violence risk remains underdeveloped and fluctuating, and he has shown an inability to identify symptoms. He requires psychotherapeutic and educational interventions to better develop his insight across all spheres and to develop more effective coping strategies. Although he has remained abstinent from substances, he remains relatively untested with less supervision in the community. Substance use has been a significant destabilizing factor for him, historically. When his mental status is compromised, he demonstrates mood lability, a reckless and erratic presentation, and threatening/aggressive behaviours, ultimately placing the public at risk. The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to promote public safety because it is reactive, rather than preventive. It is necessary for the hospital to be in a position to bring Mr. Boyd back to the hospital expediently, and to detain him, in response to decompensation. The hospital also requires the ability to approve his accommodation, as it is unclear what type of accommodation he requires at this time. After clarifying his diagnosis and determining appropriate treatment, his accommodation needs will be clearer. As a result, a detention Disposition remains necessary and appropriate.”

23. Mr. Boyd’s Index Offences involved the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The panel inquired whether it was sufficient to rely on the doctor to notify the Ministry of Transportation if he came to believe that Mr. Boyd should not be driving. The Board discussed the inclusion of a specific clause in the current Disposition, either: 1) a prohibition from driving a motor vehicle or 2) a requirement to obtain permission of the person in charge before driving. These clauses were considered because of concerns that bureaucratic issues might prevent the Ministry of Transportation from dealing in a timely manner with a request from the hospital to suspend Mr. Boyd’s license. The Board decided that this issue does not to be addressed in the current Disposition as Mr. Boyd is not currently able to afford a motor vehicle, and his access to the community will be slow and gradual.

24. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Boyd, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with the Detention Order, with the amendments agreed to by all the parties.